2011/9/27 Dr Josef Karthauser <j...@tao.org.uk>:
>
> On 23 Sep 2011, at 21:09, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>> 2011/9/23 Dr Josef Karthauser <j...@tao.org.uk>:
>>>
>>> There's no other evidence for anything other than a 3+1 dimensional
>>> universe.
>>
>> If this observation about neutrinos is true, then we do not have
>> anymore even 3+1 dimensions, but only three dimensions. FTL falsifies
>> the concept of space-time, therefore we cannot no longer consider time
>> as fourth dimension.
>
> Really? I'm not sure that it does that. At least, I doubt that that's going
> to be the first thing that theoreticians give up to explain this. :)
>
As I understand Minkowski's space, it is the first thing that flies
out of the window if this observation is confirmed.
> And, currently, there's
> no other local evidence that suggests that G/R is incorrect. Quite the
> opposite in fact, isn't it? The gravity probe B results have tested it
> to pretty high precision.
>
It would be very surprising if general relativity is incorrect at
short distances. General relativity is just a theory that describes a
force interaction that is proportional to mass and is diminished by
Newton's inverse square law. But it also add to Newton that it can
consider that gravitational interaction is transmitted at the velocity
of C.
Yes, it works fine in solar system scale if we ignore few annoying
anomalies. But general relativity is not a predictive theory that we
could generalize it into explaining galaxy wide phenomena without
calibration and what certainly it is not, a holistic description of
the cosmos.
General relativity has utterly failed to explain the rotational curves
of galaxies and at cosmic distances it is just ripped apart, that it
cannot even explain big bang, which should be impossible event in the
scope of general relativity. I think that only way to explain big bang
is that we assume that antimatter has repulsive gravitational effect
or with my pet theory, that universe has a closed geometry that it is
like a surface of four dimensional hyperball.
If cosmos has truly spherical geometry and light can travel around the
cosmos like Columbus can sail into India, then cosmos as a whole is
gravitationally balanced because every point in the cosmos is
surrounded by exactly the same amount of matter, thus initial
expansion was possible with just modest repulsive force that causes
the expansion of geometry.
This view is extremely well supported because we have observed from
cosmic microwave background radiation that the overall geometry of
cosmos is flat, i.e. the cosmos as a whole is gravitationally balanced
and it does not have positive or negative curvature what are implied
by general relativity. Therefore, observations of cosmic microwave
background should be interpreted that general relativity is falsified
in the long distances. And indeed, when we have data from Planck's
satellite measurements available, this will further confirm this idea
of spherical and gravitationally balanced flat cosmos.
> So, yes, Q/M is exactly the right theory and has
> not been shown yet to say anything other than the truth. But, until we have
> a theory that constrains the free parameters, at best we can say that we
> have an effective theory, which happens to model what we observe in
> experiment, without explaining why.
>
Perhaps nature is fundamentally non-predictive. That is, we can only
make observations and then we can just try to make models that
describes nature as accurately as they can. But these models must
always be calibrated and verified by observations when they are
generalized into larger or smaller scales.
I think that this is the main problem why classical method of science
has failed. We do not have great principles and general laws in
science, but all theories must be calibrated into preferred scale.
Just simple principles such as uncertainty principle and principle of
natural selection, which both are similar as they are utterly
non-predictive without further observations and are almost
tautological by nature.
I do not seek The Grand Theories Of Cosmos, but I am only preferring
observations.
However what is the most elegant thing in the quantum theory that it
gives us adequate proof that all electrons are exactly similar with
each other. This means that we can apply philosophically coherent
inductive reasoning into explaining nature. And it resolves the Hume's
age old conundrum, that can we trust inductive reasoning, because we
have not observed all the ravens? Yes indeed, we can trust inductive
reasoning, at least in the quantum scale. However what quantum physics
and biology implies, we cannot trust deductive reasoning, if it is not
verified by observations.
Therefore where Einstein failed the most, is that he tried to apply
deductive reasoning into nature.
> Are you still sure of Q/M?
>
Yes indeed, even more sure than before your message. You just proved
my point. ;-)
–Jouni
